Australians who won’t unlock their phones could face 10 years in jail
 

"The Australian government wants to force companies to help it get at suspected criminals’ data. If they can’t, it would jail people for up to a decade if they refuse to unlock their phones....

The government’s explanatory note says that the Bill could force a manufacturer to hand over detailed specs of a device, install government software on it, help agencies develop their own “systems and capabilities”, and notify agencies of major changes to their systems. In short, it would force communications providers to work extensively with the government to gain access to a target’s data where it was in their power to do so, and it would also compel them to keep all of this secret.

What if the communications provider doesn’t want to help? Then they could face penalties from the government, or “injunctions or enforceable undertakings”...."

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/201...years-in-jail/

Political opinion which may offend follows.

Not trying to defend the government, but most governments around the world regard acting on warrants as justifiable.

However, that sort of crap legislation is only to be expected from incompetent* right wing nutjob** governments (don't be fooled by the "Liberal" label, they're the conservatives). Although handing over the detailed specs may or may not be a bad thing.

And it may or may not be passed - the current government isn't having too easy a time in the senate at the moment.

*Not just the current government, incompetence seems to be ubiquitous in Australian politics.

**My opinion after seeing them in action over the decades.

post #1 indicates that communications providers can be forced to hand over user data, and be punished if they don't - not individuals.
or did i get that wrong?

anyhow, while this is definitely newsworthy, the "could" indicates that this hasn't happened, and isn't a done deal either.

No, it's a new law coming in here.

this reply is ambiguous.
i tried to highlight the relevant bit in my previous post.

when you say "here", do you mean australia? or earth? or a figment of my imagination???

Sorry, I did not notice that you had highlighted that part of your post. Yes you are correct both for "not individuals" (providers/companies get into trouble with the law if they don't hand over information) and no, you did *not* get it "wrong".

"here" means I live Australia myself, so yes, I mean Australia.

I didn't deliberately try to mislead you. I was simply trying to say you are right in your thinking - I'll shut up next time.

Security services need all the help they can get to catch terrorists before they can strike - it could be seen as a breach of human rights, but I'd sooner they (Government security agents) did that, than get caught up in a bombing.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin, 1755.

Totally irrelevant. If a court issues a search warrant, would the householder be defending "essential liberty" if he barricaded the door? If they say, "I'll let you in but I won't unlock my safe", would that be justified? In 1755, they had neither organised crime nor terrorists. But they still had the power to search: see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which allows searches of "effects" (which surely includes computers) with a warrant issued for probably cause.

I don't know why you call yourself ChuangTzu: you sound more like Ayn Rand!

The court issuing the warrant is the essential bit - it must never be streamlined out of the process "because we're in a hurry right now".

People have a right to private conversations, like they have a right to quiet enjoyment of their home. If there is a sufficiently credible reason for the court to properly issue the warrant then it is society's right for that warrant to be issued and acted on. The people whose conversation or home are investigated have to accept it as the price of living in the society.

But the warrant has to be properly issued, which includes a sworn statement by the requesting officer (making lying to get a warrant perjury). Society also has a right to be confident that any warrant is justified and not misused for one (or more) police officer's malice.

Edit: grammar correction.

Wisdom and truth are timeless.

Tyranny looks the same no matter what age you live in, tools/toys may be different, but the fundamentals/tactics/techniques are the same. Hitler and the Nazis had detailed information on every citizen in Germany including where you went grocery shopping, who you lived with, where you worked, who you spoke to, who sent you mail, how much money you had in the bank, Who your friends were etc..., stored on index cards, and other devices created by IBM. The only difference is today, that information can be gathered more quickly and people are more willing to volunteer this information.

They (Nazis) also had courts that issued warrants for raiding homes, arresting Gypsies, Jewish people, political opposition etc...And all was in the name of security, peace, improving the State.

Regarding ChuangTzu, its time for you to review his books again. He was very wary of the Government and institutions of power. Ayn Rand, merely stole many of her concepts from him and others.

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/3
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...black-ibm.html

Its also important to remember that "smart phones" were designed as spy devices from the beginning (camera/microphone), GPS etc... The apps were merely the hook so we would overlook privacy for convenience.
https://www.networkworld.com/article...t-founder.html

I think it's perhaps a bit shaky to say that they were designed "from the beginning" as spy devices, but they have certainly become such. Now, when it comes to Facebook, I think the "from the beginning" might be quite appropriate.

false.
both are as old as society itself.

also please keep in mind that the new law is would be against providers, not individuals, as jsbjsb001 assures me.
i'm not saying that makes it ok, but the comparison with a search warrant against an individual does not work so well.

The proposed legislation may well be rejected by the senate (although both major parties are in favour of this sort of oversite). My concerns are that if it is passed, then firstly mission creep will extend it to cover individuals and secondly the requirement for a warrant will be removed ("because we're dealing with terrorists/paedophiles/people who don't like my football team").